Crypto Dabble.

MarkCarnage

Cus said:

Ah, for a moment there we had a real balanced discussion from differing points of view....then bang, another one of those posts..

What, you mean one that presents a balanced and robust disagreement to the crypto proposition as an investment? How about presenting a cogent and reasoned argument for it then? I've read this thread and seen none. 

User232002

Aegis said:

What an erudite and cogent response. You must be so proud that, when given the opportunity to provide information you instead decide to attack the questioner for daring to come to a different conclusion to you. Again, in case the question was somehow overlooked, how do you calculate fair value for one bitcoin, and how does that pricing formula differ when looking at one dogecoin? I assume that, once again, this question will be ignored, but of course I'M the worst poster in this thread.

Because, once again, a new poster proclaiming to be a financial adviser who is well educated on crypto currency has joined the thread and is regurgitating all the stuff that has been debated, and shown to be incorrect, beforehand. This is not a different conclusion; you are not entitled to an opinion if that opinion is just plain wrong. Think what you want about crypto, but arguing that Dogecoin and Bitcoin are equivalent is just ludicrous. Flat earthers don't deserve to be respected because its 'their opinion' that the earth is flat.

If you genuinely believe this, then there is a colossal market inefficiency here and either BTC should be the price of DOGE or DOGE should be the price of BTC. So, as this is an investing forum, put your money where your mouth is like the big boys do.

Aegis said:

And no, I'm not on crack, I'm not talking about corrections or blips, I'm talking about the very real possibility of holdings dropping to negligible value and never recovering. It's happened before even to long standing investments where the underlying value seemed good, but as asked above, there doesn't seem to be a good way to value crypto tokens.

Ah, so -60% or -85% is a 'correction' or a 'blip.' Interesting take. I guess those people who held BTC through those periods know nothing about crashes as you say. What % counts as a market crash then please sir?

Please tell me more about this 'very real probability' that BTC could go to zero. If such a probability existed and was > 0 and non negligible, it would seem to follow that the observed price history of Bitcoin would be multiple standard deviations away from where it should be. In order to create a model where Bitcoin is fairly priced at something of 'negligible value,' but its followed the observed price trajectory it has requires some fairly absurd starting points.

The belief that 'one day it will go to zero,' is conveniently not falsifiable. 

Aegis

Aegis said:

darren232002 said:

Aegis said:

What an erudite and cogent response. You must be so proud that, when given the opportunity to provide information you instead decide to attack the questioner for daring to come to a different conclusion to you. Again, in case the question was somehow overlooked, how do you calculate fair value for one bitcoin, and how does that pricing formula differ when looking at one dogecoin? I assume that, once again, this question will be ignored, but of course I'M the worst poster in this thread.

Because, once again, a new poster proclaiming to be a financial adviser who is well educated on crypto currency has joined the thread and is regurgitating all the stuff that has been debated, and shown to be incorrect, beforehand. This is not a different conclusion; you are not entitled to an opinion if that opinion is just plain wrong. Think what you want about crypto, but arguing that Dogecoin and Bitcoin are equivalent is just ludicrous. Flat earthers don't deserve to be respected because its 'their opinion' that the earth is flat.

Stupid comparison. We know the earth is a globe because, among other things, we have actual pictures of it from space. I have asked repeatedly for a pricing mechanism, but I just get told that I should already know, or get insulted by "HODLers". So go ahead, show me how you calculate value for BTC and DOGE and why they are different. I assume this will lead to yet more evasions, or wishful thinking that bitcoin is somehow worth as much as gold (but no other coins despite having the same utility).

Also, I am indeed a Chartered Financial Planner. I'm happy to have that checked by people on the board that I trust. The insinuation that this isn't true is frankly deperate and insulting.

If you genuinely believe this, then there is a colossal market inefficiency here and either BTC should be the price of DOGE or DOGE should be the price of BTC. So, as this is an investing forum, put your money where your mouth is like the big boys do.

My money is firmly where my mouth is - nowhere near crypto and nowhere near short positions. If you think this is in contrast to what I say, please show how. Otherwise I'll just assume this is more flapping your mouth for the shear pleasure of insulting others.

Aegis said:

And no, I'm not on crack, I'm not talking about corrections or blips, I'm talking about the very real possibility of holdings dropping to negligible value and never recovering. It's happened before even to long standing investments where the underlying value seemed good, but as asked above, there doesn't seem to be a good way to value crypto tokens.

Ah, so -60% or -85% is a 'correction' or a 'blip.' Interesting take. I guess those people who held BTC through those periods know nothing about crashes as you say. What % counts as a market crash then please sir?

Please tell me more about this 'very real probability' that BTC could go to zero. If such a probability existed and was > 0 and non negligible, it would seem to follow that the observed price history of Bitcoin would be multiple standard deviations away from where it should be. In order to create a model where Bitcoin is fairly priced at something of 'negligible value,' but its followed the observed price trajectory it has requires some fairly absurd starting points.

The belief that 'one day it will go to zero,' is conveniently not falsifiable. 

A true crash is really hard to define, and it's certainly possible that bitcoin has had what would be called crashes in the past. The biggest issue is how long they last and how much of an impact they can have. Look at the equity crash from 2000-2003 - over 3 years of falling markets with countless individual companies going bust (i.e. a permanent loss of all value for investors). For bitcoin, the price is so volatile that I generally wouldn't call it a crash until about 80% loss, and possibly it would need to be wiped out almost entirely for drops to be more than the normal operation. In essence, it's like a penny stock on speed - we don't call it a crash every time a penny stock falls by 50%, for example.

The implication you have there is that your model for fair value is dictated by the probability of BTC falling to zero value. This is progress - it's more than I've had from anyone else when it comes to answers to the question of how to value a coin. I don't think it's a good answer, but at least it represents an attempt to answer.

Zola.

MarkCarnage said:

Cus said:

Ah, for a moment there we had a real balanced discussion from differing points of view....then bang, another one of those posts..

What, you mean one that presents a balanced and robust disagreement to the crypto proposition as an investment? How about presenting a cogent and reasoned argument for it then? I've read this thread and seen none. 

You do realise that if you've no interest you could just ignore the thread and let's who want to discuss it, discuss it?

MarkCarnage

Zola. said:

MarkCarnage said:

Cus said:

Ah, for a moment there we had a real balanced discussion from differing points of view....then bang, another one of those posts..

What, you mean one that presents a balanced and robust disagreement to the crypto proposition as an investment? How about presenting a cogent and reasoned argument for it then? I've read this thread and seen none. 

You do realise that if you've no interest you could just ignore the thread and let's who want to discuss it, discuss it?

Patronising and avoiding the question. My concern is for inexeperienced investors who may assume that because crypto features in this section it is an investment......the whole S&I section seems to be dominated by it. I put forward what I believe is a good and robust rebuttal, which the crypto disciples have all ignored. 

Adyinvestment

MarkCarnage said:

Zola. said:

MarkCarnage said:

Cus said:

Ah, for a moment there we had a real balanced discussion from differing points of view....then bang, another one of those posts..

What, you mean one that presents a balanced and robust disagreement to the crypto proposition as an investment? How about presenting a cogent and reasoned argument for it then? I've read this thread and seen none. 

You do realise that if you've no interest you could just ignore the thread and let's who want to discuss it, discuss it?

Patronising and avoiding the question. My concern is for inexeperienced investors who may assume that because crypto features in this section it is an investment......the whole S&I section seems to be dominated by it. I put forward what I believe is a good and robust rebuttal, which the crypto disciples have all ignored. 

I imagine this is the first time you have read any of the crypto/Bitcoin threads - there are literally hundreds of posts discussing arguing about it.

MarkCarnage

I imagine this is the first time you have read any of the crypto/Bitcoin threads - there are literally hundreds of posts discussing arguing about it.

I started reading one about a year ago on a wet November evening, and I'm done so again now....but it's going to be many a wet November evening before I do so again. 

I have no problem with the discussion or argument, although the rebuttals/responses to the crypto sceptics like me and many others remain weak or non existent. My main problem is that I think it needs it's own board, not this one. 

Thrugelmir

Zola. said:

1. It is relevant because there are incentives from the miner to mine given the demand. Mining is a cutthroat business, if bitcoin failed they would mine something else. Network effect.

With some 6,600 cypto currencies in existance.  Eventually the appetite will be exhausted.  

adam06_2

MarkCarnage Patronising and avoiding the question. My concern is for inexeperienced investors who may assume that because crypto features in this section it is an investment......the whole S&I section seems to be dominated by it. I put forward what I believe is a good and robust rebuttal, which the crypto disciples have all ignored. 

Crypto is an investment. You are investing in projects you believe in by buying tokens. Same as buying shares... Yes it's not regulated yet which increases risk... But it's still an investment... And things are changing rapidly, regulations are starting to come in and even the big banks are investing in crypto as they realise that it's going to be around for the long term.

Take decenetraland as an example they are developing a metaverse... Facebook are doing the same thing... But you consider buying Facebook shares as an investment, but buying dencentralands token is not?

If the section was just called "savings" then I would agree that crypto is too risky.. but shares are also too risky.

Aegis

adam06_2 said:

MarkCarnage Patronising and avoiding the question. My concern is for inexeperienced investors who may assume that because crypto features in this section it is an investment......the whole S&I section seems to be dominated by it. I put forward what I believe is a good and robust rebuttal, which the crypto disciples have all ignored. 

Crypto is an investment. You are investing in projects you believe in by buying tokens. Same as buying shares... Yes it's not regulated yet which increases risk... But it's still an investment... And things are changing rapidly, regulations are starting to come in and even the big banks are investing in crypto as they realise that it's going to be around for the long term.

Take decenetraland as an example they are developing a metaverse... Facebook are doing the same thing... But you consider buying Facebook shares as an investment, but buying dencentralands token is not?

This isn't a correct comparison, and indeed I have been told repeatedly by pro-crypto posters not to conflate crypto tokens with shares.  The tokens do not grant a fraction of the ownership of the underlying company, they don't give ownership of the intellectual property, and the owners aren't entitled to a fraction of either wind-up value or future revenues.  As I have said before, the problem with the decentralised nature of cryptocurrencies is the fact that ownership of the tokens doesn't mean ownership of the functionality or the intellectual property of the network beyond the very basic 50% requirement to do anything major, which is a very difficult barrier to overcome (deliberately so).  It's akin to thinking that Nintendo will do well, so buying up a huge number of Switches - there's no causal link between the company and its product in terms of price.  This analogy isn't perfect because Nintendo could always make more Switches in response to hoarding, but it indicates the absurdity of buying the product to participate in the growth of the company.  It wouldn't even remotely be sensible outside the world of cryptocurrency.